WSP02108

• File Number: 8273.600
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - USDA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1996
• Author: Draper
• Title: Colorado River Salinity Control Program - McElmo Creek Unit - Monitoring and Evaluation
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

I\:)
r'~
~
!-"

Since habital impacts are either too small to
measure or short term in affect, group pipelines
will not be cover typed and evaluated However
wetland habitat will be evaluated for each '
contract to measure impacts. Tables 1-4,
Appendix B, reflects a comparison of baseline
information with anticipated planned conditions,
Tables 1-4, Appendix C, reflects a comparison of
baseline information with applied conditions on
28 contracts.

F, Off-Site Wetland Monitoring

At the present time offsite wetland monitoring
bas been put on hold until funds are allocated for
the purchase of new aerial photography.

G, Wildlife Replacement

Table 4 Wildlife Progress

Item
Contracts Approved
Contracts Canceled
Contract Amounl
Contracted Acres

Amount
192
14
$3,701,553.34
23,625.65

Contracts with Wildlife 71
(38% ofTotal)
Wild Life Costs $274,161.92
(74% of To taD
Three contracts contain non cost-shared wildlife
practices and management. (See table I, appendix
C, mitigation summary.)

H, Conclusions

The terrain, the soils, and the past 75 years of
irrigation in the area have contributed
dramatically to the development of extensive
wetland acreage in a once dry basin, An average
of 4 acres of wetland exists or is adjacent 10 each
contracted unit (not including wetlands found on
non-contracted acres under the same ownership).

Landowners' attitudes and smaller operating units
have decreased our ability to achieve high quality
voluntary replacement. Many of the wildlife
practices in older contracts are being deleted due
to lack of interest on the part of the landowner.
Our best alternative for achieving gains in

wetland values while reducing salinity appears to
be the enhancement of existing wetlands.

Upland habitat losses continue to be attributed to
field squaring and elimination of cross fences to
facilitate sprinkler wheel lines and replacement of
earthen delivery ditches with buried pipe.

CUlTently, urban sprawl is substantially
decreasing both quantity and quality of upland
and wetland habitats and wildlife populations.

Cumulative impacts from NRCS salinity activities
on agricultural land have had linle affect on
wildlife. In some instances the quality of habitat
has increased where marginal cropland has
become more productive under oew irrigation
systems and bener management. NRCS '
recommendations for a rotation with alternative
crops have increased crop diversity, thus
increasing food and forage for wildlife.

Probably the most significant negative impact to
habitat has been the incorporation of intensive
and technologically advanced management
practices to reduce labor and increase returns.

It should be noted that the. Cortez Office spent a
great deal of time (close to two years) organizing
and coordinating an interagency team, with
representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), to look
into the feasibility of developing Dawson Draw
as a waterfowl refuge. Reorganization of the
Bureau of Reclamation appeared to have stopped
the process but nothing was officially announced
to our agency. However, in talking about
mitigation with the CDOW on Feb. 15, 1996,
they mentioned that the USFWS, BOR, and
CDOW had meet and decided to completely drop
the Dawson Draw idea, This was disappointing
because of the time and effort involved and the
lack of communication with our agency.

McElmo Creek Unit M&E 1995 Report
Page 8